JUDGEMENT

1. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 is preferred by the petitioners, who are proposed defendant no. 3 & 4, in a suit instituted by the respondent No.1/plaintiff bearing CS DJ No. 11307/2016 titled as ‘Satwant Kaur v. Ramesh Bhardwaj & Ors.’, thereby assailing the impugned order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-02, Central District, Delhi2, whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff, was allowed.

1 CPC
2 Trial Court

2. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court unhesitatingly finds that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff is that she had filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 18813, against the petitioners/defendants, who were unable to make the payments.

However, an agreement dated 16.09.2008 was executed, wherein defendant no. 14 agreed to sell portion of the property in question comprising of ground floor and mezzanine floor to her.

4. Accordingly, while she agreed to give up her claim insofar as the second floor of the property was concerned, she allowed the defendant no. 1 to occupy the same for some time. To this effect, an agreement dated 08.02.2011 was executed between the parties.

Eventually, after several parleys, a sale deed dated 14.03.2011 was executed & registered, and the possession of the ground floor as well as mezzanine floor besides second floor was given to her.

5. The grievance of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff was that in August 2013, she came to know that defendant no.1/Ramesh Bhardwaj, had illegally and without her consent sold the entire second floor and third floor with roof rights up to sky to defendant No.2 on 04.10.2011 by means of registered sale deed dated 04.10.2011.

Accordingly, she filed a suit seeking relief of possession in her favour with regard to the second-floor portion with roof rights up to the sky,

3 NI Act
4 Sh. Ramesh Bhardwaj in CS DJ No. 11307/2016

damages for wrongful use and occupation of the property by the defendants, and interest, etc.

6. It appears that defendant No.1/Ramesh Bhardwaj and other defendants contested the matter and denied respondent No. 1/plaintiff assertion’s that she was sold anything beyond the ground floor and mezzanine floor, and in this respect, inter alia, relied on sale documents dated 01.11.2010. The said reply filed by the defendants in the suit triggered this application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, whereby substantial amendments are sought so as to plead, in particular, that the sentence ‘first floor with terrace rights over and above’ in the GPA5 deed dated 01.11.2010 in favour of defendant No.5/Goraknath Patil, should be deleted and replaced with the correct words ‘first floor with terrace rights over and above’. An additional relief vide 19(f) by way of the proposed amendment is sought for rectification of the GPA dated 01.11.2010.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that in the main plaint, the respondent No. 1/plaintiff has sought reliefs only against defendant No. 1 namely Ramesh Bhardwaj, and defendant No.2, agitating that the sale deed dated 04.10.2011 is not binding upon her. However, it appears that defendant No.2 has sold the second-floor portion to defendant No. 5/Goraknath Patil by means of an agreement to sell dated 01.11.2010. It also appears that in the agreement to sell and other documents dated 01.11.2010, it is recorded that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff has agreed to sell the first floor with terrace rights over and above to defendant No.5, which is claimed to be false.

8. In short, apart from the aforesaid amendment, the petitioners seek to implead defendants No. 3 and 4, who are now in use and occupation of the built-up portion of the first f